5 ms·

The pedophilia advocating is much earlier. From his website (the last sentence is his opinion) Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for l

The pedophilia advocating is much earlier. From his website (the last sentence is his opinion) Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization. [Reference updated on 2018-04-25 because the old link was broken.] I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children

simag 7y ago
I disagree with Stallman's skepticism (I do think it harms children and I don't think children can make that choice). But that one liner does not make him a pedophilia advocate. That makes him someone who is wrong on that topic.
- urbanjunkie 7y ago
  No no, it absolutely does make him a paedophilia advocate. Stop fucking defending him.
- oblio 7y ago
  If you're wrong about something, are famous and put that wrong thing on your site, you are advocating for that wrong thing. Because people believing in that wrong thing will point to you as a figure of authority. Not fair, but life's not fair.
- DanBC 7y ago
  He didn't know what he was talking about, but felt it was okay to use his public platform to say it anyway. That's not scepticism. It's laziness. We have reams of evidence to show that paedophilia is harmful to children, and a 5 minute web search would have returned some of it.
  - Avamander 7y ago
    And he did retract that more than a decade old statement.
    - seax 7y ago
      Why did it take him takes to come the the conclusion that sexually abusing children is wrong? And why are you defending that?
      - Avamander 7y ago
        Because who remembers everything they've said? I do what?
    - greedo 7y ago
      It took him a decade to retract that statement, said retraction conveniently occurring when this shitstorm about Epstein is reaching a crescendo. Retractions and apologies with such timing appear awfully convenient and insincere.
      - Avamander 7y ago
        Who remembers everything they've said more than a decade ago? He was reminded now that he had said that and has changed his views on it.
        greedo 7y ago
        This isn't a verbal conversation, this is something he wrote on his own blog, no?
        Avamander 7y ago
        Yes, but one doesn't have neither written or regular speech memorized so it doesn't matter which it was.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    > He didn't know what he was talking about, but felt it was okay to use his public platform to say it anyway. You've described basically every single human being in tech I've ever met, they just don't have as big a platform. See: Musk's twitter feed, for instance.
  - boring_twenties 7y ago
    Yeah but is there a web search engine that respects your freedom?
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    If this is so easy, please provide links to research, preferably not done by a clearly biased organization. (E.g. not IICSA) Books are acceptable too, as long as they're research. There are only a handful of case studies of really bad cases I'm aware of. And they're not that exacting in follow-up. Note research, not opinion pieces. Good quality papers. I found just a handful. I'm having trouble fishing then out from the thousands of opinion pieces. Edit: I found one credible meta-analysis so far, and the results are not good. Most of abuse is not reported. Impact is not known, how handling of it is done is unknown to affect severity. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3720272/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3720272/
  - concordDance 7y ago
    I've been looking for non-anecdotal evidence that non-coercive pedophilia is harmful for a long time. Got any links?
concordDance 7y ago
RSM is in good company: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy What he says makes sense to me, I can think of no reason/mechanism why voluntary and loving pedophilic relationships would be innately harmful to children other than the surrounding societal reactions making them victims. If you do know of such a mechanism (or a study showing harm of non-coersive pedo stuff that manages to separate out societal victimhood labelling) please link me to it, because I've been looking for that for a while.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- quickthrower2 7y ago
  Wtf?
  - concordDance 7y ago
    As a rule, explanations are more helpful than exclamations.

simag 7y ago

I disagree with Stallman's skepticism (I do think it harms children and I don't think children can make that choice). But that one liner does not make him a pedophilia advocate. That makes him someone who is wrong on that topic.

urbanjunkie 7y ago
No no, it absolutely does make him a paedophilia advocate. Stop fucking defending him.
oblio 7y ago
If you're wrong about something, are famous and put that wrong thing on your site, you are advocating for that wrong thing. Because people believing in that wrong thing will point to you as a figure of authority. Not fair, but life's not fair.
DanBC 7y ago
He didn't know what he was talking about, but felt it was okay to use his public platform to say it anyway. That's not scepticism. It's laziness. We have reams of evidence to show that paedophilia is harmful to children, and a 5 minute web search would have returned some of it.
- Avamander 7y ago
  And he did retract that more than a decade old statement.
  - seax 7y ago
    Why did it take him takes to come the the conclusion that sexually abusing children is wrong? And why are you defending that?
    - Avamander 7y ago
      Because who remembers everything they've said? I do what?
  - greedo 7y ago
    It took him a decade to retract that statement, said retraction conveniently occurring when this shitstorm about Epstein is reaching a crescendo. Retractions and apologies with such timing appear awfully convenient and insincere.
    - Avamander 7y ago
      Who remembers everything they've said more than a decade ago? He was reminded now that he had said that and has changed his views on it.
      - greedo 7y ago
        This isn't a verbal conversation, this is something he wrote on his own blog, no?
        Avamander 7y ago
        Yes, but one doesn't have neither written or regular speech memorized so it doesn't matter which it was.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  > He didn't know what he was talking about, but felt it was okay to use his public platform to say it anyway. You've described basically every single human being in tech I've ever met, they just don't have as big a platform. See: Musk's twitter feed, for instance.
- boring_twenties 7y ago
  Yeah but is there a web search engine that respects your freedom?
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  If this is so easy, please provide links to research, preferably not done by a clearly biased organization. (E.g. not IICSA) Books are acceptable too, as long as they're research. There are only a handful of case studies of really bad cases I'm aware of. And they're not that exacting in follow-up. Note research, not opinion pieces. Good quality papers. I found just a handful. I'm having trouble fishing then out from the thousands of opinion pieces. Edit: I found one credible meta-analysis so far, and the results are not good. Most of abuse is not reported. Impact is not known, how handling of it is done is unknown to affect severity. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3720272/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3720272/
- concordDance 7y ago
  I've been looking for non-anecdotal evidence that non-coercive pedophilia is harmful for a long time. Got any links?

concordDance 7y ago

RSM is in good company: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy What he says makes sense to me, I can think of no reason/mechanism why voluntary and loving pedophilic relationships would be innately harmful to children other than the surrounding societal reactions making them victims. If you do know of such a mechanism (or a study showing harm of non-coersive pedo stuff that manages to separate out societal victimhood labelling) please link me to it, because I've been looking for that for a while.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
quickthrower2 7y ago
Wtf?
- concordDance 7y ago
  As a rule, explanations are more helpful than exclamations.